The New "Anti-Semitism"

As if on cue, The New York Times reports "Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor". The essay is by David Harris. The publisher is the American Jewish Committee. To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the "new" anti-semitism seems to be that it isn't anti-semitism. Certainly, to qualify as a "new anti-semite" it doesn't seem to be necessary to have a bigoted view of the Jewish religion or of Jewish people as an ethnic or cultural group. The author pretends to argue that hostility to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the defining characteristic of the "new" anti-semitism, which is fairly ridiculous on its own terms, but as you read through the examples that's clearly not what he's saying. Rather, his view is that some people make what he regards as extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel, and that anti-semites would also make such criticisms, so therefore anyone who criticizes Israel too stridently is either practicing anti-semitism or else creating it.

Needless to say, similar standards don't apply elsewhere. Check out my friend Mark Leon Goldberg's post about Anne Bayefsky's ridiculous accusation that "the U.N. provides sustenance for the Iranian genocidal threat, which is directed at Israel now, and America next." That's a crazy, absurd, and horribly unfair thing to say. It's not, however, evidence of racial animosity against Persians, or South Koreans or whomever. By the same token, criticism of Israel -- even ill-informed, unfair, unduly harsh criticism of Israel -- isn't anti-semitism, it's political disagreement.

At any rate, when you think about it, things like this essay or Jonah Goldberg's little McCarthyite smears aren't really about convincing people that I'm an anti-semite, or that Tony Judt or Adrienne Rich or Tony Kushner is. The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing. And based on my observations of the blogosphere, it works pretty well as a tactic.

Comments

"The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing."

Pat Buchanan can take the heat. And you are his favorite Jew.

(First thing I did when I saw that NYT piece was to search for your name. If you can't parlay this whole controversy into a few minutes of talking head time on CNN, you need a new agent...)

Posted by Petey | January 31, 2007 12:10 AM

I agree with you that it's effective as an intimidation tactic against non-Jews. Also, can someone define modern zionism for me?

Posted by Web | January 31, 2007 12:28 AM

[i]At any rate, when you think about it, things like this essay or Jonah Goldberg's little McCarthyite smears aren't really about convincing people that I'm an anti-semite, or that Tony Judt or Adrienne Rich or Tony Kushner is. The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing. And based on my observations of the blogosphere, it works pretty well as a tactic. [/i]

I think that's partially true. I think that it is also a sign that these forces are losing the battle. I ve noticed this tactic appearing in 2002 and it seems to me that more and more people are joining the fray to criticize Israel and defy the mud thrown at them.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 31, 2007 12:31 AM

I think about three years ago, there was a good bit of reporting and commentary concerning the "new anti-semitism" in Europe (and to some degree elsewhere), with references to synagogue burnings and roaming gangs of skinheads committing hateful acts. That news was of great concern, and should continue to be focus of scrutiny and action. I'm not sure how expanding the definition of the phrase, "new anti-semitism," here, helps to combat real hate.

Posted by DC | January 31, 2007 12:32 AM

As a student of history, I find the political policies of the Jewish neocons to be extraordinarily reckless.

First, pretty much everyone in DC politics knows perfectly well that both our current Iraq War and also the possible attack on Iran are primarily being driven by a small but very influential group of Jewish activists, with the full support of the Israeli government. Those commenters who denounce MY and others for saying this are basically denouncing people who say that the sun rises in the morning. I would also note that the silence of most others on this topic does not imply ignorance but merely temporary cowardice. And in these days of the Internet it is impossible to prevent important ideas from rapidly spreading.

Second, our Iraq misadventure has already been correctly described as "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history." There are many sober analysts who believe an American/Israeli attack on Iran would result in a further disaster perhaps an order-of-magnitude greater in impact. Terrible energy disruptions, a collapse of the dollar and the stock market, and worldwide economic hardship are plausible consequences, together with the obvious military risks. And this huge impact would certainly be felt domestically, as a massive blow to our existing economic and possibly political system.

It should also be noted that when nations or societies change their longstanding and entrenched positions under great stress, these changes are often sudden and dramatic, and frequently tend to over-shoot in the opposite direction.

Realistic analysts have repeatedly noted that any Iranian nuclear weapons are probably 5-10 years off at the earliest, and that Israel anyway already possesses a powerful deterrent capability against any future Iranian use of such weapons. This is absolutely correct.

However, it is far less obvious to me that Israel possesses any substantial deterrent capability against a few of our own Midwestern ICBMs eventually paying short, unfriendly visits to Tel Aviv and Haifi.

Being myself Jewish and of part-Israeli background, I would find this a most unfortunate final resolution to America's long and troubled involvement with the Middle East region.

Posted by RKU | January 31, 2007 12:34 AM

I think about three years ago, there was a good bit of reporting and commentary concerning the "new anti-semitism" in Europe (and to some degree elsewhere), with references to synagogue burnings and roaming gangs of skinheads committing hateful acts.

That anti-semitism doesn't sound especially new; or, at least, especially distinct from the old anti-semitism. Obviously, though, if you're burning down synagogues then, yes, you're an anti-semite whether of the old or new varieties.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 31, 2007 12:35 AM

Anti-Semitism is so thrown around these days that it's easy to forget who the real anti-Semites are, whether they be right wing Christians who see Israel as a means to and end or whether they be people who actively engage in Holocaust denial. As a liberal Democrat (and devout Christian, but that's aside the point) who supports Zionism, why do some people expect support for Israel be unconditional? Is that how friendship works? I want America and Israel to remain close friends, but none of my friends would support me if I did something that wasn't right. They would tell me I was doing something wrong. Are these people going to come after Thomas Friedman, no friend of Arafat he, for advocating a policy of total concession of the occupied territories to the vast, vast majority of their inhabitants?

www.matthewstruhar.blogspot.com

Posted by Matt S. | January 31, 2007 12:44 AM

However, it is far less obvious to me that Israel possesses any substantial deterrent capability against a few of our own Midwestern ICBMs eventually paying short, unfriendly visits to Tel Aviv and Haifi.

That's silly. Also not really true. Israel has some state of the art diesel subs that experts think are probably armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

The over-swing you describe is certainly possible. But it would have a lot to overcome. Jews of different stripes are machers and have strong alliances in both political parties. I could imagine the Democrats swinging to an anti-Israel stance more easily than the GOP (bound as it is by evangelical pro-zionism), but it would cause tremendous anguish among Democratic Jews and do a lot of damage to the party. More likely, it might contribute to the brief rise of an isolationist third party, which would burn itself out quickly as single-issue third parties always do in the US.

But I don't see it as at all unreasonable that US aid to Israel might evaporate over the next 10 years.

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 31, 2007 12:56 AM

Matt says: "By the same token, criticism of Israel -- even ill-informed, unfair, unduly harsh criticism of Israel -- isn't anti-semitism, it's political disagreement."

I think you should say: Unduly harsh, ill-informed, unfair criticism of Israel isn't necessarily anti-semitism; it can be [or even usually is] just political disagreement.

I suggest this amendment because sometimes political disagreement is motivated by anti-semitism. I think (?) you have allowed this possibility in the past.

Posted by tp | January 31, 2007 12:57 AM

I suggest this amendment because sometimes political disagreement is motivated by anti-semitism. I think (?) you have allowed this possibility in the past.

Sure, sure . . . presumably if you hate Jewish people, you'll also have mean things to say about Israel.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 31, 2007 1:09 AM

I think MY is misreading the piece. The "new antisemitism" is about style: they're doing it with earth tones this season.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 31, 2007 1:16 AM

Give me a break, Matt, you frequently call people racist for saying far milder things about Arabs than the "anti-Israel" statements Harris discusses. For example, you call this kind of thing "racist."

Yet, for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it.

And now you say that statements like the ones below (from the Harris article) aren't anti-semitic?

"We take Zionism to be a form of collective insanity"

The Palestinians 'are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die.... This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering super-power but an emerging evil.'

In short, Matt's view seems to be:
* Arabs aren't capable of democracy: racist.
* Israelis are crazy genocidal killers: not racist.
Which demonstrates a pretty big double standard.

Posted by Ragout | January 31, 2007 1:35 AM

Ragout, the obvious response is to note the difference in type of the two subjects, Arab vs. Israeli. Wanna guess why one is racism and the other's not? Is this that hard for you?

(That's a cheap response that a cheaper argument deserves.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 31, 2007 1:44 AM

Ragout, the former is borderline racist. The latter is not. If the latter statement ran something like "It appears that the cynics were right: Jewish-run states inevitably end up violent, discriminatory, and expansionist, because the Jews see themselves as a Chosen People and others as innately inferior," then it would move into the anti-Semitic zone.

Though, in fact, I think it is worth exploring the extent to which the Jewish ideology of chosen-ness, our insularity and our sense of ourselves as unique, contribute to a propensity towards screwing the goyim when we get the upper hand.

Anti-semitism is a whole ecology. Any single statement, short of "Kill the Yids!", is unlikely to be anti-semitic. When you start to see the whole matched set coming into alignment, though - control Wall Street/divided loyalties/babies in the matzoh - then it's time to lock your windows and load the Uzi.

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 31, 2007 1:54 AM

"presumably if you hate Jewish people, you'll also have mean things to say about Israel."

And since anti-Semitism is socially unacceptable ...

"That's a crazy, absurd, and horribly unfair thing to say. It's not, however, evidence of racial animosity against Persians"

Of course it's evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, or strong evidence, but it's evidence.

The case against Judt is again not at all conclusive, but it's pretty simple: a) Judt is smart and informed and logical b) the one-state solution would lead to the destruction of Israel and the deaths of many many Jews [in particular, more deaths than an achievable 2-state solution following the Clinton Parameters] c) point b) is obvious to someone smart and informed and logical - therefore d) Judt is anti-Semitic. I think you agree with me on a) and b). I think c) is clearly true, and have to assume that he's just not logical on this subject. It's hardly surprising that people are bad at giving political opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Of course this doesn't say anything about e.g. Rich, who would probably jump into a volcano before sharing Pound or Eliot's prejudices.

Posted by rilkefan | January 31, 2007 1:55 AM

Matthew Yglesias:

To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the "new" anti-semitism seems to be that it isn't anti-semitism.

I recall reading a book with a title like 'The New Anti-Semitism' around the time of the first Gulf War. I did some googling, and found that Norman Finkelstein says the ADL published a book with that title in 1974, and another with same title in 1981.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=479

I'm guessing the 1981 version is the one I read, but I can't be sure.

Maybe we should be discussing 'the third new ant-semitism' or 'anti-semitism version 4.0'.

Posted by David Tomlin | January 31, 2007 2:12 AM

*Sigh*. I would think that Judt would argue over b), rilkefan. Judt believes the one-state solution would be best for the Jews, in part because it would cause less death and destruction. The truth of the matter is that demographic trends in Israel and Palestine point to Israel having an Arab-majority population within 20 years. After all, the birthrate in the Palestinian territories is the highest in the world. If Israel doesn't get out, Israel will either have to cease being a Zionist state or become an apartheid state. Judt is the "squishy" type of liberal who would like to see the people of the world live side-by-side and not killing each other and thinks this is the best way in Israel's case to accomplish this. You may argue that this is unrealistic, but he is also not operating under the same assumptions as him. Putting words in his mouth does not make him an anti-Semite.

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2007 2:23 AM

First of all, the presumed motive: I am, without a doubt, a goy. Yet never in my life have I changed my behavior for fear I could be mistaken for an anti-semite. Perhaps I have avoided all of those many institutions by which the ADL exerts their vigilante brand of justice, or perhaps no one gives a shit what I think or don't.

Second, rilkefan, are you serious? Honest question, not rhetorical. That "the one-state solution would lead to the destruction of Israel and the deaths of many many Jews" ... "is obvious to someone smart and informed and logical" I mean, that could happen, I suppose, but it is by no means obvious. In fact, given the respective armaments of the states in question, I'd call it unlikely. Not to say your assertion isn't true, just that you're going to have to back it up with a lot more argumentative force if you're going to call it "obvious".

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 2:29 AM

I'm as liberal as they come, I'm Jewish, and I think you're fundamentally missing a major point, which an earlier commenter made when correcting you in the following comment:

//I think you should say: Unduly harsh, ill-informed, unfair criticism of Israel isn't necessarily anti-semitism; it can be [or even usually is] just political disagreement.//

Absolutely correct. I see real, legitimate anti-Semitism manifest all the time around Israel. Some of the ugliest comments on DailyKos (where I diary all the time) are those that connect Joe Lieberman to an "Israel faction," bringing up the age old accusation of Jews as disloyal to the state and covertly working for another national agenda.

Is that anti-Semitism? Absolutely.

Is Joe Lieberman one of the most shameful frauds to call himself a Senator in American history? Absolutely.

But nearly every time the Lieberman-Israel smear is made, you're seeing a form of covert anti-Semitism emerge.

The same is true for some, but certainly not all, criticism of Israel, which comes from a deep rooted rage that Jews are fundamentally illegitimate and so is their country. It is a deep rooted subconscious rage that Jews have a country.

Is this all criticism of Israel? Certainly not. But for you to dismiss the overlap is to be disingenuous at best.

That being said, Jonah Goldberg makes me ashamed to be Jewish.

Posted by WinSmith | January 31, 2007 2:30 AM

Two people respond to my post about Matt's double-standard by saying that "Israel thinks [something horrible]" is not racist, but "Arab societies are [something horrible]" isn't racist.

But that's just silly. Israel is a predominantly Jewish state, and I hardly think the critics were claiming that Israeli Arabs are genocidal killers. Steinglass and Tim's logic implies that "The Congolese are little better than monkeys" isn't a racist claim. But again, that's just silly.

Almost as weird is Matt Steinglass claim that you'd have to say "Jewish-run states" to be racist, not just "Israel." But presumably he's aware that Israel is the only Jewish-run state in the whole wide world.

Posted by Ragout | January 31, 2007 2:30 AM

Right, so when people in the various non-European parts of the world start doing the "We hate America" dance, they're also saying that they hate white people? They're not just terrorists--they're racists!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 31, 2007 2:33 AM

Please, self-hating whites.

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 2:36 AM

foolishmortal, if you can come up with or point me to a colorable scenario (vague constitution, legal system, conflict resolution mechanisms, disposition of the armed forces, state monopoly of violence/enforcement of laws) not leading to a brief thorough pogrom, I'll withdraw my claim. I certainly can't imagine one taking place in many many generations. I think it's obvious that the Clinton plan (Palestine gets 97+% of the WB+Gaza, half of Jerusalem for some definition of half, and a symbolic right of return in exchange for a big economic boost; Israel gets security guarantees and normalization of relations) is the only possible and just solution.

Posted by rilkefan | January 31, 2007 2:45 AM

SCMT: 'when people in the various non-European parts of the world start doing the "We hate America" dance, they're also saying that they hate white people?'

Right, because everyone in Sweden is black.

Posted by rilkefan | January 31, 2007 2:50 AM

Right, because everyone in Sweden is black.

Eh?

Posted by gswift | January 31, 2007 2:53 AM

SomeCallMeTim,

I was careful not to say that you actually believed that "The Congolese are little better than monkeys" is not racist. But it sounds like you actually do believe that. If you do, you're a fool.

I have no idea if non-Europeans who say "we hate America" really mean "we hate white people." I'd have to know something about their culture and history. Perhaps you're unaware, but "non-Europeans" are quite a diverse bunch.

But since I'm familiar with the US context, I know very well what people mean when they say "the Congolese are monkeys," or "Israel thinks all Palestinians would die."

Posted by Ragout | January 31, 2007 2:53 AM

OK, WinsSmith, I'll bite. Say, independent of all specific politicians, you determine that the U.S. is better off distancing itself from Israel: say, refusing aid unti it starts dismantling settlements. This is a legitimate,non-anti-semite position in your book, yes? I mean, given that an Arab-Israeli peace us in our interest, settlements are counterproductive. With me so far? OK, now assume you're a Connecticut voter: how do you maintain these views without becoming an anti-semite? Kind of in a bind aren't you?

If someone were to call Lieberman a usurer or accuse him of deicide, that would be anti-semitic. But judging a Senators views on foreign policy, only excluding Israel, is the same.

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 2:56 AM

Incidentally, I propose from time to time that "proudly eponymous..." be replaced with "Pat Buchanan's favorite Jew."

Posted by gswift | January 31, 2007 2:56 AM

God, I love Israel posts. They bring out the balls in everybody.

Anyway, RF, here's the long and short of it: the Palestinians have AKs and the occasional RPG. The Israelis have Galils, tanks, aircraft, and the fucking Mossad. I'm assuming a worst case scenario here, but it should be noted here: Palestinians are not idiots. Should it come to blows, they'd decline combat. The real threat to the one state solution is demographic: Arabs outbreed Jews in the region. Should a single state solution emerge, Israel would win short term but lose long term. The total pop would shift towards Arabs, and Israel as a refuge for Jews would die. This is the long term problem, pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 3:08 AM

rilkefan:

the one-state solution would lead to . . . the deaths of many many Jews . . . is obvious to someone smart and informed and logical . . .

It's not obvious to me.

Giving myself the benefit of the doubt that I am reasonably smart and logical, I must be under-informed. Could you point me to a source for the necessary information?

I've read several books about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm up for a few more. Give me a list. Unless it's very, very long I'll read them all.

Posted by David Tomlin | January 31, 2007 3:24 AM

Btw. am I the only one who feels that gswift's latest was out of line?

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 3:31 AM

Dude, It's a joke based off of the first comment by Petey.

Posted by gswift | January 31, 2007 3:36 AM

What gives me some hope for a peaceful reunification of Palestine, is that the South Africans managed a peaceful transition from apartheid to a unitary state with universal suffrage. The situations are fundamentally similar, even though the opprobrium in which the South African system was so widely held (somewhat excessive in my opinion) naturally makes many supporters of Israel reluctant to acknowledge the parallels.

Posted by David Tomlin | January 31, 2007 3:51 AM

So it was. Me == stupid.

Posted by foolishmortal | January 31, 2007 3:52 AM

I have no idea if non-Europeans who say "we hate America" really mean "we hate white people."

They don't. When average Vietnamese in 1968 said "we hate America", given their attitudes towards non-aligned Swedes and friendly Russians at the time, they did not mean "we hate white people". When West Africans in former French colonies say "we hate France", given their relatively friendly attitudes towards America, they do not mean "we hate white people". When mixed-race left-wing South Africans say "we hate America", and their white left-wing South African buddies concur, neither of them means "we hate white people".

This is a silly thing to say.

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 31, 2007 3:57 AM

What gives me some hope for a peaceful reunification of Palestine, is that the South Africans managed a peaceful transition from apartheid to a unitary state with universal suffrage.

You should give up that hope. The South African solution will not work for Israel/Palestine. I don't excuse Israeli stupidity and oppression, but the main reason why Palestine can't be South Africa really is that the ANC had Nelson Mandela and the Palestinians had Yasser Arafat. Where "Mandela" exemplifies an entire culture and history of Xhosa pliability, forgiveness and compromise, and Arafat exemplifies an entire history and culture of Palestinian bitterness, intransigence and vengefulness. Mandela's greatness in overcoming the vast legitimate grievances of South African non-whites is a one-of-a-kind thing, though it has substantial roots in his culture; no such greatheartedness will be forthcoming from Palestinians.

The one-state solution is an absurdity, which, in the impossible event that it came to fruition, would quickly devolve into an Iraq-style civil war, followed by repartition -- and most likely a whole new flood of Palestinian refugees for Arab states to absorb.

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 31, 2007 4:05 AM

Arafat exemplifies an entire history and culture of Palestinian bitterness, intransigence and vengefulness. Mandela's greatness in overcoming the vast legitimate grievances of South African non-whites is a one-of-a-kind thing, though it has substantial roots in his culture; no such greatheartedness will be forthcoming from Palestinians.

OK, now, you see, that's racist. Quick summary: saying "[obnoxious policy X] is the result of transient political circumstances in [population group x]" isn't racist. Saying "[policy X] is the result of immutable and inherent features of [group x]" is. The Russians invaded Hungary because the Russian leadership feared that liberalisation in any of the satellites would threaten their own rule. That's not racist. Saying "The Russians invaded Hungary because Russians are just naturally invadey people" is.

Posted by ajay | January 31, 2007 5:17 AM

I have to agree with Ragout, Israel isn't "a State with some Jews," it is THE Jewish State. The only one there is, and the only one there is ever going to be. Criticizing its right to exist as a Jewish state is a revocation of Jewish nationhood. Advocating a one state solution does precisely that.

foolishmortal:
In fact, given the respective armaments of the states in question, I'd call it unlikely makes no sense in a discussion of a potential one-state reality. There'd be no Israel with a superior army - the legitimate state would be something where the levers of state power were in control of the Arab demographic majority. Would the Jews really be allowed to maintain their own (stronger) militia in such a scenario? (And that would differ from a two-state solution how?) I can't imagine they would, and minority rights aren't the strongest element of Arab political culture these days. I don't mean that to be a racist statement, since I'm not arguing Arabs are incapable of such a political culture, just that it wouldn't be the culture in a Jewish/Palestinian binational state formed tomorrow. There would need to be serious institutional development to change that, and no rational person can seriously expect that it would occur fast enough to avoid a lot of Jewish death/removal. And anyone who does believe such a thing can be avoided had better outline exactly how that's going to happen in some detail.

Posted by Larry | January 31, 2007 6:21 AM

According to the story, the essay itself is by Alvin Rosenberg, not David Harris. Harris is cited as contributing an introduction to it.

Posted by SqueakyRat | January 31, 2007 6:44 AM

One particular issue concerns the role of interest groups in American politics. That's one where the question of Israel and lobbying for Israel is entirely divorced from the normal form of analysis of US politics. In ordinary informed discussion of - not ot mention the overwhelming result of political science work on - US politics, it's entirely predictable that the best organised small group gets whatever it wants from the US political system, regardless of political party in power, with the exception of when there are two equally organised groups squaring off (say the chemical companies and environmental groups since 1970 - before around 1970, the chemical companies more or less got whatever they wanted) between parties or even more rarely within parties.

So it's entirely common place to say the 'steel workers' or the 'owner of Chiquita' have forced the US into WTO trade disputes which damage the world trading system. The power of the small group is the defining force of US politics. But if you try and say this about the Jewish lobby for Israel, there follow all sorts of demands for precision that you are referring to 'some' Jews (as if you could be referring to anything else, as is it's not 'some' steelworkers who lobby for tariffs), to name names as to who is lobbying for what (when the people demanding that would find it extremely difficult to name names in the pharmaceutical or agriculture lobbies in the same way, but would not draw the conclusion that these lobbies are mythical), and where the discussion is pushed towards a 'are you saying the Jews control the government ?!?!' with 'of course there is some Jewish lobbying for Israel' as the only permitted alternative. You and Wes Clark got this treatment recently.

The point is that powerful organised groups in US politics generally, overtime, get whatever they want, and that the presence or absence of a powerful organised group is the best predictor of policy outcomes in American politics. Just as when you said, about Perlstein's writings about the South and racism, that disagreements about race are central should be no surprise -- such disagreements have traditionally been the most important issue in American politics, so similarly, attribution of decisive political power to a lobbying group is no surprise, the relative political power of lobbying groups have traditionally been the most important indicator of political outcomes in American politics.

Posted by otto | January 31, 2007 6:53 AM

I doubt that many Europeans or Americans side with Muslims against Israel because of anti-semitism. Surely nearly all Christians who hate Jews also hate Muslims. These are the old anti-semites.

On the other hand, there are some Europeans and Americans who dislike Israeli foreign policy so much that thinking up their best insults against Israel has led them to anti-semitism, or at least to posting anti-semitic remarks on the internet. These people can be called the new anti-semites. I don't think this anti-semitism has any relation to the old anti-semitism except for the borrowed rhetoric. It's unfortunate that there are idiots who make these remarks, because Israeli policy can be justly criticized without ugly, racist insults that help rightwing nuts smear all other critics of Israeli policy.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 31, 2007 6:57 AM

winsmith:
I do believe Joe Lieberman's support for the Iraq war is predicated largely on his (mistaken) belief that it contributes to Israel's security. Call me what you will, but I'm not going to cop to being an anti-Semite on that account.

Posted by SqueakyRat | January 31, 2007 7:09 AM

"Rather, his view is that some people make what he regards as extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel, and that anti-semites would also make such criticisms, so therefore anyone who criticizes Israel too stridently is either practicing anti-semitism or else creating it."

The other aspect of this is that such an approach is not applied to extreme or over-the-top advocacy of Israeli policies or extreme or over-the-top criticism of the Palestinians. Cf. M. Peretz, as per your posts. So as well as demonizing criticism of Israeli, the other strand of this discourse is the normalisation of Israeli/Jewish chauvinism ('what's all this fuss about the settlements...?').

Posted by otto | January 31, 2007 7:24 AM

It's often a mistake to weigh in on such a thing, but life's too short to avoid making all the mistakes there are:

Israel today has a significant non-Jewish population. The existence of, and status accorded to this population are often touted by supporters of the Zionist project as evidence that Zionism isn't racism. Israeli Arabs don't have their own militia, and I think the hope has long been that once a solution of some sort is reached, the Israeli Arabs will continue to have their current status.

The one state solution isn't anything but the status quo with a higher number of Israeli Arabs. Potentially. Saying that it would inevitably lead to pogroms strikes me as racist.

Posted by CharleyCarp | January 31, 2007 7:31 AM

Excuse me for interjecting, but I wanted to solicit some opinions of an article I wrote that is related to the subject you are discussing: Israel: Time For Soul Searching.

In the article I propose a dramatically new approach to negotiations with the Palestinians that I believe will achieve lasting peace for the Israeli people.

That is to say, I believe it will result in (A) Israel continuing to exist as a viable state, AND (B) complete acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians and all Muslims around the world.

My question: Do you believe my proposal reveals me to be an anti-semite?

Posted by James Kroeger | January 31, 2007 7:56 AM

CharleyCarp: "... the Zionist project"? I'm guessing that some of your "best friends" are supporters of this "project", eh?

Posted by Christopher G | January 31, 2007 8:25 AM

Karl Rove to Rahm Emanuel: "All your donors are belong to us,
my little tutu-wearing liebchen"

Posted by Don Williams | January 31, 2007 8:31 AM

In the last episode of bloggingheads.tv--in which he appears opposite Jon Chait--, Goldberg gently chastizes Chait for attributing an intention to deceive to someone else (whose name escapes me at the moment). Goldberg seems to champion the idea that attributing bad faith to one's political opponents (a trait he detects on the liberal left) is undesirable, and that it is unnecessary to venture into divining the intentions, motivations, and states of mind of one's adversaries. He also defends Charles Murray (of "The Bell's Curve"-infamy) from Chait's accusation of unseriousness. It is evident from his defense of Murray that he would not associate Murray to prominent racists by simply pointing out that Murray believes African Americans to be less intelligent, on average, than White Americans, just like prominent racists do. That is to say, you won't hear Goldberg saying that Charles Murray is a new version of a German scientist who happened to believe--during the time of the eugenics craze--in the superiority of the German race.

So it comes as a surprise--doesn't it?--that Goldberg is all too enthusiastic to smear Matt by association with Charles Lindbergh. No matter what Goldberg's views on Lindbergh may be on the public record, he is obviously not behaving towards Matt in the way he himself prescribes. He is quick to point out the "anti-semitic" nature of "tropes" supposedly present in Matt and Ezra's rhetoric, but I suspect he would never insinuate that racist tropes populate Charles Murray's rhetoric. The generous disposition he displays towards Murray contrasts sharply with the vile and pusillanimous smears he directs towards Matt. And this is all the more infuriating because Charles Murray is indeed someone *obsessed* with making comparative claims about race, whereas Matt Yglesias is conspicuously uninterested in going there.

Posted by pedro | January 31, 2007 8:35 AM

"bringing up the age old accusation of Jews as disloyal to the state and covertly working for another national agenda.

Is that anti-Semitism? Absolutely."

In this particular instance we have particular individuals who
wrote "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" - a policy paper
about a plan for *Israel*'s security; and then a little while
later were in the Pentagon putting those policies into effect.
The general accusation would be anti-Semitic; the evidence for
the divided loyalties of certain neocon individuals is there
in black and white.

PS not a Jew myself, but married Jewish and raising two sons
Jewish.

Posted by Richard Cownie | January 31, 2007 8:51 AM

tp: I suggest this amendment because sometimes political disagreement is motivated by anti-semitism. I think (?) you have allowed this possibility in the past.

MY: Sure, sure . . . presumably if you hate Jewish people, you'll also have mean things to say about Israel.

OK, but I would add an amendment that some anti-semites in this country also hate Palestinian semites and/or think that Israel's actions are detrimental to Jewish people in general and therefore have some love for Likud, Sharon, and the latest adventure in Lebenanon.

Sometimes political agreement is motivated by anti-semitism.

Posted by toast | January 31, 2007 9:13 AM

BTW, Lebenanon is Lebanon before the coffee gets to the fingers.

Posted by toast | January 31, 2007 9:17 AM

MY:

Your penultimate sentence is partly correct (except, can we use neutral English, instead of "the goyim" -- how about "non-Jews"?). Sometimes the charge is meant to intimidate non-Jews, but other times, as in the insinuations made about Lamont, it's meant to turn influential Jews, while at other times, I'm convinced, the charge has little to do with Israel or even Jews: I'm thinking of frequent accusations made about the Putin regime a couple years back, where "anti-Semitism" was a surrogate for a number of geopolitical and oil-related reasons for our adversarial relationship.

I'm surprised at your last sentence; you are a living refutation of it. Me, too. I comment a lot here and I get a respectful hearing (or ignoring). In the past couple years I've noticed an increasing openness by Jews and non-Jews to the subject of Israeli influence in U.S. policy, and American Jews' facilitation of that influence; maybe I get a too-limited sample. In fact, the "anti-Semitism charge" is thrown around less and less, at least here on the left.

Posted by brendan | January 31, 2007 11:02 AM

The "new" antisemitism is just a tactic by thugs to silence nuanced criticism of Israeli policy in the US. It may be that Kushner etal. may have to go to Jerusalem to speak it and write it--it's welcomed there, ironically; a sign that Israeli Jews are more comfortable with intellectual debate than Abe Foxman and his droogs.
But the old antisemitism is still out there. A rigorous examination of the US-Israeli special relationship by friends of both sides is the surest way to prevent a Buchananite discussion about "amen corners" and "dual allegiances". There are a lot of people hurting because of the effects of the Iraq war, and they're open to the first demagogue willing to call it a "war for Israel."

Posted by Steve Paradis | January 31, 2007 11:13 AM

The essay is not by David Harris. He wrote the introduction. Perhaps you should get this fact straight before opining, but I've come to expect this sort of major oversight from you. Fool.

Posted by reader | January 31, 2007 11:15 AM

Steve Paradis:

Your argument reminds me of those in Congress who want non-binding resolutions about the war over action. You want debate, but it has to be "rigorous"? I imagine the direction of the debate will hinge on who's defining "rigorous".

Answer this: Would, for example, the Mearsheimer Walt paper (abridged and unabridged version) be considered "rigorous" enough? The overwhelming reaction by guardians of civilized debate that it was, precisely, that it was "sloppy" and not "academically rigorous". Indeed, it wasn't published in the U.S. for lack of "rigor". "Rigor" aside, it served as an effective broadside, and for me at least, was nothing more than a recapitulation of what I've gleaned myself from a daily wading through our establishment press. I'm sorry if I've jumped to conclusions, but your use of the word "rigorous" rings a bell with me.

As for Buchanan, if you really wanted debate, you'd be able to handle him. Are you really too delicate for the imputaton of "dual allegiances" (as if they didn't exist, anwyhere!), or that there exists an "amen corner" in the U.S. (um, AIPAC, PNAC, JINSA, the Washington Post editorial board, etc. etc. ad infinitum?)? Buchanan, for years, has been the only public figure to criticize Israeli influence in our politics vocally (I'm convinced the media puts him out there as a kind of talisman to guard against wider criticism, as a kind of inoculation against it), and for that alone he deserves some recognition, if not admiration.

Posted by brendan | January 31, 2007 11:31 AM

But that's just silly. Israel is a predominantly Jewish state, and I hardly think the critics were claiming that Israeli Arabs are genocidal killers. Steinglass and Tim's logic implies that "The Congolese are little better than monkeys" isn't a racist claim. But again, that's just silly.

there's a logical fallacy here, though, ragout -- just because critics of israel do not explicitly mean arab israelis does not necessarily mean that they DO mean jewish israelis. it is perfectly possible -- indeed, true in the vast majority of cases -- that when a critic of israel criticizes israeli national policy, they criticize also the supporters of israeli national policy. and, as everyone knows, many jews (both israeli and of the diaspora) don't support it.

i think one can obviously take the position that "likud is a party of genocidal killers" or that "avigdor lieberman has learned the lessons of the 1930s a little too well" without being an antisemite -- far from that, i think such thoughts express a position of deep sympathy for the jewish israeli left and that large segment of the jewish diaspora that would like israel to be something better than what they perceive it to be, than what it perhaps is -- or even believe that the manifestation of zionism that is israel has to some perverse extent damaged the amalgam of judaism by conflating and confusing in the minds of many (jews and non-jews alike) the deep spiritual and moral authority of the religion with temporal and machiavellian power-seeking of the state (in much the same way as it could be argued that the emperor constantine's conversion changed forever christianity in ways that ultimately disgust many christians).

Posted by gaius marius | January 31, 2007 11:31 AM

The greatest tactical achievement of zionism in Britain and the U.S. has been the conflating of anti-zionism with anti-semitism.

Posted by Murph | January 31, 2007 11:43 AM

MY, Steve Paradis:

Steve Paradis describes the writers of the article in question "thugs". Isn't the notion that this is "thuggery" laughable? It just underscores the conformity and timidity of people who knuckle under to this increasingly indiscriminately made insinuation. Even if there is sometimes real financial/career pressure in Congress in the media to refrain from discussing the subject, I'm convinced, maybe too optimistically, that it's just as much perceived social decorum. All it takes, as one commenter said, is a little "balls" to hit back. Hopefully, enough critical mass will be achieved to get more such balls rolling.

Posted by brendan | January 31, 2007 11:45 AM

First, the AJC report is not about "silencing the goyim" - its target is progressive Jews and the message is "be careful what you saying in front of the goyim." (I would point you to the discussion that took place weeks ago on this topic on Jewschool.)

The central message of the report is that internal Jewish debates about Israel take place in a wider context. That context is rising anti-Semitism, centered in the Islamic world that masquerades as opposition to Israel. One of the central propaganda tools of anti-Semites is hyperbolic, ill-informed, strident criticism of Israel seeking to deligitimate the state of Israel and dehumanize Israeli Jews.

The report itself is ham-fisted. It lumps together anti-Zionists with American Jews who express ambivalence towards Israel. It opens itself to precisely the misreading of it that MY makes in this post.

Clearly, withholding all serious criticism of Israel simply because it is could be manipulated by anti-Semites is absurd. But similarly pretending that criticism of Israel, no matter how misleading, unfair or hyperbolic is mere political disagreement, is willfully ignorant.

Posted by mhp | January 31, 2007 11:52 AM

mhp:

I'm inclined to think you have it backwards. Those who demonize Israeli Jews may be doing it as part of deligitimizing the Israeli state. Another commenter here, something-Grossman, I believe, made this insight.

Posted by brendan | January 31, 2007 12:22 PM

I have a question, probably a very old and obvious one but if so then my lack of an answer is an even more pressing concern.

Am I right in thinking that 'Jew' is a religious term, 'Israeli' is political/national, and 'semite' is racial? And am I also right in thinking that the arabs are semites? Wouldn't that mean that no criticism of Israel in defence of the Palestinians could possibly be anti-semitic, just anti-israeli or anti-judaic? The critic might be an absolute nazi, but his criticism couldn't be racist unless it applied equally to Israelis and Palestinians. To clarify, it is possible for a man to support the liberation of Tibet only because it allows him to criticise China, which he dislikes on racial grounds. But his criticism wouldn't be racist, merely its motivation. His criticism would have to be political.

I assume that this arguement must be wrong, as no-one ever seems to make it, but I don't know why.

Posted by graham | January 31, 2007 12:24 PM

Graham - Arabs are also semites, but the term "anti-semitic" refers to prejudice against Jews, specifically. It has always meant that, ever since it was devised in the 19th century (by anti-semites, no less), and continues to be used in this way.

Being a Jew is both a religious and an ethnic characteristic. One can be a religious Jew without being an ethnic Jew (e.g. Sammy Davis Jr.) or an ethnic Jew without being a religious Jew (e.g. any number of people), but the two tend to be correlated.

I suppose it would actually be more accurate to say that there are several Jewish ethnicities - Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and so forth - that aren't necessarily that closely related to one another, and that these collectively can be termed a "Jewish" ethnicity on the basis of common religion. Or something. But that's the basic idea.

Posted by John | January 31, 2007 12:53 PM

'I have to agree with Ragout, Israel isn't "a State with some Jews," it is THE Jewish State. The only one there is, and the only one there is ever going to be.'

Israel may be a Jewish state, but that does not mean every action taken by Israel or Israelis is an intrinsically Jewish action. If someone says that Israelis are taking genocidal actions against Palestinians, that is not necessarily antisemitism. It is quite possible that an antisemite is making the statement, but not necessary. It is even conceivable that it could be true. I am partially of German descent. The German state quite certainly did engage in genocide against the Jews. I do not take a statement of that fact as evidence of antigermanism. I do not take discussions of the Holocaust as accusations that all Germans are genocidal.

'Criticizing its right to exist as a Jewish state is a revocation of Jewish nationhood. Advocating a one state solution does precisely that.'

Denying Jewish statehood is not denying Jewish nationalhood. Many nations have no state. In Iraq alone, the Kurds, Assyrians and Chaldeans have no state. Even tiny Belgium is comprised of two nations. How many hundreds of native peoples in the Americas have no state? Hopefully, the backward notion of the nation-state, which had it's uses, will vanish, and be replaced by a societal-state (a state of relatively shared values rather than a state of people born on the same dirt).

Posted by Njorl | January 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Many nations have no state. In Iraq alone, the Kurds, Assyrians and Chaldeans have no state. Even tiny Belgium is comprised of two nations. How many hundreds of native peoples in the Americas have no state?

I'm sure all those native peoples in America and Kurds are real happy about not having a state. Working out well for them all these years, is it? Belgium seems a success, to be fair, and I know very little about the plight (or not) of Assyrians and Chaldeans.

Hopefully, the backward notion of the nation-state, which had it's uses, will vanish, and be replaced by a societal-state (a state of relatively shared values rather than a state of people born on the same dirt).

That's a nice hope, I suppose, but there are two problems with it. First, there isn't a set of "relatively shared values" between the Palestinians and the Israelis (not in any meaningful use of the term relatively, anyway). Also, isn't Israel in many ways your 'societal-state'? A set of people with Jewish values, not necessarily born in Israel, but who congregate there on the basis of their values and beliefs. Yes, there's more to it, since the particular dirt Israel exists on does matter to those people, but still... Second, when eliminating the nation-state system, I have to ask why it is everyone wants to start with the Jews. Why not start with, say, France, or Japan or Mexico or Saudi Arabia? Somehow it is always the Jewish state that comes under this attack. (I think MY had a post sometime back arguing against my point here, but I don't recall being persuaded and I can't find the post right now).

Posted by Larry | January 31, 2007 5:41 PM

Well add one more blog by a goyim willing to talk about the whole thing as well as possible. Of course, in my case, I'm not sure entirely what I have to lose by refraining from posting on Palestine as I currently see it. But if there is a risk, I've risked it and view my personal blog as entirely political disagreement but seriously doubt that is how some others would view it.

At any rate, I've just "discovered" you Matthew Yglesias and I look forward to reading more.

Regards,
Brad

Posted by Brad Stroud | January 31, 2007 6:30 PM

what kind of jew and "part-Israeli" not to mention person envisions this?

"However, it is far less obvious to me that Israel possesses any substantial deterrent capability against a few of our own Midwestern ICBMs eventually paying short, unfriendly visits to Tel Aviv and Haifi."

sick F*ck.

Posted by RKU is a fraud | January 31, 2007 7:35 PM

"The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing. And based on my observations of the blogosphere, it works pretty well as a tactic."

I couldn't have said it any better myself!

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 31, 2007 9:50 PM

This doesn't quite capture what the essay says. Its primary targets are outright kooks like Neumann and Kovel and it only briefly and less scathingly touches on Judt and Rich, who emerge more as enablers than bigots in their own right.

It's not the best written work by a long shot, but it's not nearly the wild jeremiad that MY (defensively) perceives it to be. It's quite clear from the foreword that the author is directing his fire at people who are calling for the dissolution of Israel, not critics of Israel's policies.

Posted by Tom | January 31, 2007 10:17 PM

As for liberal Jews not thinking Israel should exist, at the recent Iranian Holocaust Denial Fete, there were ultraconservative Jews present who find a Jewish state in Israel, prior to the arrival of the Messiah, to be blasphemy. One of those weirdos had actually been interned in German camp. (Nobody stranger than people, huh?)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 31, 2007 10:21 PM

It's quite clear from the foreword that the author is directing his fire at people who are calling for the dissolution of Israel, not critics of Israel's policies.

Well, forgive me for not wading through the AJC paper (I don't think there is much new under the sun on this topic), but it has something to do with anti-semitism right?

So you become an anti-semite not when you say too mean of things about Israel, but when you propose a certain policy? Is this "objective anti-semitism" where if in the accusers point of view bad things will happen to Jews if your proposal comes to pass you are an anti-semite?

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 31, 2007 10:43 PM

It's quite clear from the foreword that the author is directing his fire at people who are calling for the dissolution of Israel, not critics of Israel's policies.

Did you read past the foreword? The essay's problem is that the author is incapable of distinguishing between anti-semitism; condemnations of Zionism as racism or fascism (which are, I'm sorry, a tenable and not innately anti-semitic position, though one I strongly disagree with); and condemnations of Israeli policy in the Territories as comparable to apartheid, which is a stance I do agree with. The only form of criticism of Israel which he is willing to permit his opponents is a mild critique of Israel's "sometimes" brutal or excessive actions against Palestinians in the Territories. Any more substantive argument -- that Israeli brutality is dictated by the decision to continue the occupation in the first place, that there are elements of classic fascist discourse which are common and by now unremarkable in Israeli right-wing politics, etc. -- is to him a sign of anti-semitism.

When the disturbing new anti-semitism boils down to the point that two Brits you've never heard of and a distinguished black lesbian poet think Israel should cease to be a Jewish state, I think we're seeing a shibboleth a-wielding.

By lumping all of these

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 31, 2007 10:57 PM

The New Anti-semitism was first sighted I believe shortly after the New Left was less than enamored with the '67 Wars outcome. So the New Antisemitism is coming up on forty years old and not so coincidentaly shares a birthday with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 31, 2007 11:02 PM

Yet, most times I hear such criticisms, it is always qualified with some such phrase as "mind you, I didn't say 'Jews', I said 'Israel'". Why the qualifier? As the English bard once said: "Methinks thou doth protest too much.".

Posted by Lee | January 31, 2007 11:53 PM

Well Lee, once you've been falsely accused of anti-Semitism too often by people who should know better for just criticizing Israeli policy, maybe some people have learned to add a qualifier to avoid getting into an ugly, stupid, pointless argument.

Posted by Reality Man | February 1, 2007 2:53 AM

Jeffrey Davis:

As for liberal Jews not thinking Israel should exist, at the recent Iranian Holocaust Denial Fete, there were ultraconservative Jews present who find a Jewish state in Israel, prior to the arrival of the Messiah, to be blasphemy. One of those weirdos had actually been interned in German camp.

Why would you expect that experience to change his theological views?

Ed Marshall:

The New Anti-semitism was first sighted I believe shortly after the New Left was less than enamored with the '67 Wars outcome.

That's a fascinating observation.

It occurs to me that the interaction of the Vietnam War and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War in the minds of Americans is a neglected topic.

Posted by David Tomlin | February 1, 2007 8:37 AM

"Second, when eliminating the nation-state system, I have to ask why it is everyone wants to start with the Jews. Why not start with, say, France, or Japan or Mexico or Saudi Arabia? Somehow it is always the Jewish state that comes under this attack."

Compare the immigration policies of the countries you mentioned with those of Israel. You will find that they are most in sync with Saudi Arabia. If you are Jewish, you are a citizen of Israel. Third generation Japanese-Americans are not citizens of Japan.

'there isn't a set of "relatively shared values" between the Palestinians and the Israelis (not in any meaningful use of the term relatively, anyway).

There actually was a genuine Jewish/Palestinian community before colonialism screwed it all up. There is nothing inherently inimical between Jews and Moslems. A century ago, they got along with eachother much better than either got along with Christians.

"Also, isn't Israel in many ways your 'societal-state'? A set of people with Jewish values, not necessarily born in Israel, but who congregate there on the basis of their values and beliefs. "

No. It is a country of people with the same label. If someone has essentially the exact mean of values of a poll of all Israelis, yet is not Jewish, they are treated differently specifically for that reason - they lack the approved label.

Posted by Njorl | February 1, 2007 9:16 AM

what's with you freaks? there is no "palestinian people," just a bunch of arabs who are kept in desert ghettos by their own fellow arabs. what we have in the middle east is partition, with a single homeland for jews and a dozen or so countries for the arabs. the jew country flourishes, the arabs run prison states. and your problem with that is that the jews have a state? they should live on the moon maybe? good idea, you dumb shits.

Posted by homer simpson | February 1, 2007 9:42 AM

"Compare the immigration policies of the countries you mentioned with those of Israel. You will find that they are most in sync with Saudi Arabia. "

OK, I screwed up that sentence royally.

I meant to say that Israel's policies on citizenship were more in line with Saudi Arabia's that they were with modern democracies.

Though, to clarify, there are still problems with that idea in every nation. The way the French exploit N. Africans, the GErman treatment of Turks, the Japanese treatment of Philipinos, the US treatment of Mexicans, are all open to severe criticism.

Posted by Njorl | February 1, 2007 9:45 AM

I don't know if that was the intent, but it sure works, at least on this goy. I've had a hell of a time feelinmg free to post some of my recent thoughts on Neocons, AIPAC and some of Foxman's recent stuff. And I'm an old line Zionist of the Irgun, Stern Gang variety.
In passing, it struck me that one device in Harris's paper was to lump together scholarly and persausive critics like Tony Judt, with a congeries of eccentric fringe figures like Kovel.

Posted by Dick Mulliken | February 1, 2007 12:26 PM

"some people have learned to add a qualifier to avoid getting into an ugly, stupid, pointless arguement." Yeah, I've noticed most of those "some people" tend to be neo-nazis, klansmen, Buchannanites, comunists, muslims, etc.

Posted by Lee | February 1, 2007 10:10 PM

Homer Simpson, their main reason for hating Israel is that it currently continues to exist as a nation, while the Third Reich has been relegated to the ash-heap of history.

Posted by Lee | February 1, 2007 10:16 PM